betsy

I definitely agree with you! I know some gays too that even seem embarass about all these hooplas. They'd rather not be dragged along in this muck. I've seen a whole page ad taken by a group of homosexuals supporting the preservation of the traditional meaning of marriage. It's only the lobby group (of course they're powerful)...and some radicals...and especially some liberal-do-gooders who think they're doing the homosexual community a lot of good by fighting for this "cause".

I find it hard to believe that they cannot get licenses to join in UNION of any kind. I'm talking of Canada. We all would be supportive if gays will come up with their own version of marital union. Look at UK! They did well there! There was no major upheaval...everyone seems to be happy! But when you talk of the word "marriage"....I bet gays will go through an endless battle over this. And like I said, even if they do get to keep SSM recognized by the law....it won't be the same. It will never be the same as that of the traditional marriage. Without the recognition and acceptance of religious orders (and their followers)...SSM will be meaningless. It is the kind of validation they'll never get.

Oh well, depending on various religion.....some sins fall under either what they call venial or mortal sins. But you see, whether we agree or not to religions' interpretations, it is not for us to dictate to them how they should interpret and practice. No one in gay marriage debate has *ever* attempted to dictate to a religious organization how they should or should not honor certain marriages. I would never support that. What we want is equal access to a certain state-issued license. I meant the KoC case. KoC has their own rules. Whether we agree or not with their interpretations (like the examples you've given above), it is still their own organization and their own policy. We have no right to dictate to changes just to suit anyone who objects to it. The simplest and most logical solution would've been for the lesbians to look elsewhere to hold their celebration. Their action only supports what some of us suspect, that the next step for the gay after having won through the courts would be to challenge religious freedom.

You know what, the best way is for those who disagree strongly with the preachings of their religion to branch out on their own. That's why we have the protestants. They opposed some teachings of the Catholic church, was it not? There's no stopping for gays and those who strongly oppose the beliefs of their religion regarding gays and gay marriage to make their own religion. They can interpret whatever doctrine or bible or koran it is to their hearts' content...and they will also enjoy the same freedom encompassed under religious freedom.

Oh well, depending on various religion.....some sins fall under either what they call venial or mortal sins. But you see, whether we agree or not to religions' interpretations, it is not for us to dictate to them how they should interpret and practice.

Well then, it's perfectly within the legal rights of the organization to make it a point that they don't get toyed with by the frivolity of some inconsiderate individuals...who are most probably doing it for their 15 minutes of fame....at the expense of others.

We may disagree with the principles of organizations...or the interpretations of others. It's free to voice it out. However, the fact still remains that the two lesbians were not there for the purpose of love. They're there to further an agenda.

You're entitled to your own opinion. I find it very disrespectful, to say the least, for these two lesbians to impose their will on a religious group. Following the gospel does not mean having to follow the way of the sinners. Or whatever it is that wants to change the laws of the church and the teachings of God. Funny when we start invoking "Christian ways" as a tool to undermine real Christian values.

Yes, the two struggles are very similar. When the Civil Rights Act was introduced, many people had 'practical' reasons that it was a bad idea. For example, it was bad for business etc. They didn't see equality as an issue that needed to be prioritized. I believe that gays are persons and have every right that straights do. The blacks have a legitimate reason to fight for their civil rights. The gays had fought for their civil rights and had won. I'm sure most of us here practically agree that gays should enjoy the same benefits and protections that heterosexuals enjoy. There is no problem in that regard. But don't tell me dictating to a religious group how to conduct their business is part of that civil rights. I call that, "stepping on our rights!" See what happens when you extend an arm? They end up wanting the whole body!

They may be a religious organization, but they aren't free to discriminate under the law. They do have the right to freely practice their religion. And everyone knows by now, especially gays and lesbians, the stance of most Christian religion regarding homosexuality. Our religion and our belief regard homosexuality as a deviancy. It is a sin! Those lesbians have no right to dictate that KoC disregard their own rules for their sake! They are using this organization and this particular incident to further their petty agenda! For what? Just to make some petty statement about their so-called rights! Why do they care if they are turned down on the basis of religious freedom? In the same token, why do they care so much to be accepted in THIS PARTICULAR venue....when there are so many venues to be had? Wouldn't they rather hold their so-called "marriage" celebration in a place that welcomes them with open arms? Isn't this so-called "marriage" feasting a cause for celebration? Why would they want to insist on having it in such light and atmosphere? It's supposed to be a happy occasion for these two lesbian. I think I know why they keep challenging the church and religion. They want validation. Without over-all recognition in church...or even a semblance of acceptance by religion....the ruling of the judge means nothing! SSM may be recognized by law....but it still means nothing if religious groups refuse to recognize such unholy matrimony! In the eyes of most religious practitioners from mostly all religion, SSM is nothing but a big joke to some (nudge-nudge-wink-wink)....an abomination to others.....and a slap in the face of God!

Btw, I hope we don't start comparing the plight of blacks to that of the homosexuals!. The blacks were fighting for civil rights!

The problem with your statement is that it opens the doors to discrimination on any conceivable basis - skin colour, ethnic origin, religion, gender, age, even hair colour. The government shouldn't have to tell anyone to treat all people equally - I'd like to see it just being inherent in each of our personal value systems. Government interference is too much...that some of its impractical rules are costing businesses unnecessary expenses. But then, that's for another thread.

The case you're talking about is one of many grey areas that will be tested. The KoC is a Catholic organization, but not a church. Its members are practicing Catholics, but being a practicing Catholic doesn't give you carte blanche to discriminate. There are many more cases that will need to be tested, including adoption. You mean to tell me that lesbians can dictate to the Catholic Women's League? KoC may be an organization....but it is an organization based on religion! It is these kind of challenges that only infuriates people more towards the gay group! I would like to see them try this shenanigan on the Muslims and we'll see how they deal with the fatwa. We are a majority though Betsy, meaning we have no rights. Just have to take it I guess, religion is a bad thing in Canada (unless your Muslim). You know what, I feel more inclined to believe that religion is under siege! Of course they'll start on Christianity...since as you say, we're the majority....and we do not go to extremes in fighting for our beliefs. At least, the gay group had done one good thing: it united the muslim countries with the US in turning down ILGA's application in the UN. At least there's one common ground that they agree with, eh?

KoC hall can be a fund-raising option for this group. It is unlike any business places. Since it is a religious property, based on their religion...they can impose rules that do not go against their faith. Of all public halls available, why would these lesbains insist on this particular one? Btw, that tribunal for human rights....how do those judges get chosen?

The case you're talking about is one of many grey areas that will be tested. The KoC is a Catholic organization, but not a church. Its members are practicing Catholics, but being a practicing Catholic doesn't give you carte blanche to discriminate. There are many more cases that will need to be tested, including adoption. You mean to tell me that lesbians can dictate to the Catholic Women's League? KoC may be an organization....but it is an organization based on religion! It is these kind of challenges that only infuriates people more towards the gay group! I would like to see them try this shenanigan on the Muslims and we'll see how they deal with the fatwa.

NDP is out to lunch. They propose a lot of social fundings and claim to be working for the working people. They are so anti-corporations! How many big businesses closed down and moved elsewhere? How many people had lost their jobs? How can they even think of financing all these grandiose policies they promise...if they keep bashing corporations who provide jobs for the working people? Who will be saddled with all these expenses? And yet they promise tax breaks for everyone. Yeah, right.

True! Throughout the world, there is a ritual celebrating the union of a man and a woman. It may be known by another name in another language....but the meaning is nevertheless the same. We know it as marriage.

Oh dear, that's the kind of system I want! There truly is a big disparity between services among provinces then....from healthcare to this!

Will try that one.

I agree. There should be some regulations. The Day Nurseries Act is already there. If there will be any inspections, I would like to see The Ministry getting directly involved in it. I envision getting inspected the same way as food industry gets inspected by Health and Safety. Random. With consistent rules...the power not there to be abused. A lot of us want to keep operating as independent businesses. We are willing to follow regulations. You wouldn't believe the petty nonsense we have to put up with the agency doing inspection for their homes. They make up their own rules as they go along. There is no consistency. I find it too unprofessional. Being under a licensing agency opens up to unfair treatment and unfair opportunities for those subjected to be under them...for they wield the power as to whom to give what clientele. Careprovider A may be given all the choice clients with regular hours thus her spaces are neatly filled up by full-time children...whereas Caregiver B may be given all the crappy schedules, a motley mixed of drop ins and part-timers filling up her spaces....thereby, earning potentials are vastly different between the two. This agency had broken its own rules. On various occasions with various caregivers. I was one of them.

I used to be in a dance troupe in College under a gay choreographer. There were several gay dancers too. We used to joked then that you see all these macho-looking men sign in to join (to avoid having to do another requirement)...and given three months, they all got transformed into effeminate, shrieking flamboyant girlie men! Those were the fun days. I must say gays , (at least the ones that I had befriended) were fun to be around with. But the thing is, it was notable that two of those macho men-turned-gays....suddenly turned back into men, and married women. Of all surprises, one who've I've known to be flamboyantly gay all along...was so masculine years later. Didn't Freud say that all of us go through this "confusion" ....mostly during pre-adolescent or pubescent stages? That those stages are normal? That in the end, it will get sorted out?

I thought there's equal pay now? Besides, who do you think fork over the extra expenses for maternity leave? Hiring someobody to fill in while the mother is on a year-long leave? Sick child leave? Where does the money come from? You bet it's tacked onto prices...which the consumers have to pay. So taxpayers (being consumers) get a double whammy! And what happens when the business decide to close down eventually and open somewhere in Tiki-Tiki island ...just so they can compete? Who eventually loses a job?

But aren't those daycares such as the one mentioned by Tml gone through training programs? Isn't it supposed to be regulated? In other words...regulating and endless training programs may help...but offers no guarantee. So they are the same as that of unlicensed daycares. It would be better then if Harper pours money into providing training programs for EVERYONE interested...including parents!